The stay-at-home dad who says he lost his dignity – and his children’s respect

[wvwvw]

The stay-at-home dad who says he lost his dignity – and his children’s respect: GRANT FELLER used to be in charge of a million-pound budget, now he balances his household bills and his family are not impressed
PUBLISHED: 00:29 GMT, 8 July 2014 | UPDATED: 01:10 GMT, 8 July 2014

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/08/article-0-1F71C8B100000578-147_638x406.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/08/article-2683941-1F71F1BC00000578-415_638x404.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/08/article-2683941-1F709BD800000578-300_638x413.jpg


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2683941/The-stay-home-dad-says-lost-dignity-childrens-respect-GRANT-FELLER-used-charge-million-pound-budget-balances-household-bills-family-not-impressed.html#ixzz36qs2EOby

[zhaoyun]

This is obvious to anybody who isn't brainwashed by liberalism. A man is supposed to be a provider, this is ingrained in our DNA. When in a household, the mother replaces the father as the provider, and the man assumes the role of the homemaker, then obviously his standing will come into question.

Take note, I'm completely in support of women having careers and also household chores being shared. But when a man completely gives up his responsibility to provide, he will inevitably lose the respect of not only his children, but his wife and also his peers.

[Speed Air Man]

This is obvious to anybody who isn't brainwashed by liberalism. A man is supposed to be a provider, this is ingrained in our DNA. When in a household, the mother replaces the father as the provider, and the man assumes the role of the homemaker, then obviously his standing will come into question.

Take note, I'm completely in support of women having careers and also household chores being shared. But when a man completely gives up his responsibility to provide, he will inevitably lose the respect of not only his children, but his wife and also his peers.

Women perform the bulk of the workload (~90%) in many African traditional societies, such as the Mbuti, while the men are fairly inactive. This would seem to indicate that men as providers is not ingrained in our DNA. Repeated failed attempts by the American government to encourage males to be "responsible" for their children would also indicate that it is not considered socially shameful to not provide. Single motherhood skyrocketed when the artificial barriers against it were lifted. It would seem that it is the mother's duty to provide for children; the father's supposed "duty" was in itself the "brainwashing" you are referring to. What's happening now is the natural order of things are coming to fruition.

[Aviator]

Women perform the bulk of the workload in many African traditional societies, such as the Mbuti. This would seem to indicate that men as providers is not ingrained in our DNA.

The first problem here is that you're insinuating that we're comparable to African peasants.

[Speed Air Man]

The first problem here is that you're insinuating that we're comparable to African peasants.

Well, given the vast number of African peasants in your country claiming welfare, I suppose one could argue that you could be considered the African men's mothers, their providers. :thumbs

[Aviator]

Well, given the vast number of African peasants in your country claiming welfare, I suppose one could argue that you could be considered the African men's mothers, their providers. :thumbs

Sadly, you're not far off.

[Speed Air Man]

This is obvious to anybody who isn't brainwashed by liberalism. A man is supposed to be a provider, this is ingrained in our DNA. When in a household, the mother replaces the father as the provider, and the man assumes the role of the homemaker, then obviously his standing will come into question.

Take note, I'm completely in support of women having careers and also household chores being shared. But when a man completely gives up his responsibility to provide, he will inevitably lose the respect of not only his children, but his wife and also his peers.

Ew. I just noticed you're Asian.
Typical Asian male mentality.
No woman would ever have children with you.

[rhiannon]

Ew. I just noticed you're Asian.
Typical Asian male mentality.
No woman would ever have children with you.
That Asian is one of this board's brightest and most astute members:)

[Speed Air Man]

That Asian is one of this board's brightest and most astute members:)

WeLL yOu Go GuRLLLL~!!!

[Melina]

This is obvious to anybody who isn't brainwashed by liberalism. A man is supposed to be a provider, this is ingrained in our DNA. When in a household, the mother replaces the father as the provider, and the man assumes the role of the homemaker, then obviously his standing will come into question.

Take note, I'm completely in support of women having careers and also household chores being shared. But when a man completely gives up his responsibility to provide, he will inevitably lose the respect of not only his children, but his wife and also his peers.

YES YES YES!! No matter how much society tries to make this seem as "sexist" it is the truth. A man that stays at home is being submissive which is not deemed respectable in a patriarch society.

I personally would never be with a guy who I am maintaining. No way in hell.

[zhaoyun]

Ew. I just noticed you're Asian.
Typical Asian male mentality.
No woman would ever have children with you.

So basically you're saying that a man who owns up to his responsibility as a provider should be seen as an outcast?

That's very twisted logic, but go ahead and live in your own world.

[zhaoyun]

YES YES YES!! No matter how much society tries to make this seem as "sexist" it is the truth. A man that stays at home is being submissive which is not deemed respectable in a patriarch society.

I personally would never be with a guy who I am maintaining. No way in hell.

Honestly, a man who is perfectly fine with having their woman support them is not a real man. Dumbass motherfuckers on here can call me sexist but I don't care. I'm not talking about men who are temporarily laid off, or down on their luck, but those who are perfectly fine with having their woman pay all the bills, earn the family bread and take care of him financially, that's not a man, that's a fucking boy.

[zhaoyun]

Women perform the bulk of the workload (~90%) in many African traditional societies, such as the Mbuti, while the men are fairly inactive. This would seem to indicate that men as providers is not ingrained in our DNA. Repeated failed attempts by the American government to encourage males to be "responsible" for their children would also indicate that it is not considered socially shameful to not provide. Single motherhood skyrocketed when the artificial barriers against it were lifted. It would seem that it is the mother's duty to provide for children; the father's supposed "duty" was in itself the "brainwashing" you are referring to. What's happening now is the natural order of things are coming to fruition.

Wow. You talk about all this like it's a good thing or an example to follow. Yes, men should learn to be shiftless and dependent. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I'm just having a disgusting "Asian" mentality. SMH.

To be honest, since you brought up the Mbuti, I think one of the greatest problems facing the African American community and why there is persistent poverty is precisely because many African American men do not expect to be providers, or they don't consider that a responsibility they need to uphold. Although obviously there are these types of men in all communities, it definitely seems far more pronounced in the African American community which is why there are extremely high rates of single mother households and generational poverty.

[rhiannon]

Just to be clear, the women who invariably end up caring for their children after dad has up and bailed do not deserve to be demonized. Hopefully though, they will have learned their lesson the next time around.

I personally believe that the person who has the bigger earning capacity is the most suitable candidate for working full-time. I don't really have any great respect for men or women who think it is someone else's duty to provide for them. If in the process of marriage and childrearing, it ends up that one parent stays at home, fine.....but there would be a cold day in hell for me to sit here and say my husband owes it to us to slave for the family any more than I should. He so happens to have better earning potential than I do so he is the one who works mostly. If that changed ever in our future, I'd be prepared to switch places with him if necessary...assuming my health holds out and whatnot.

Hope it never comes to that though because hubs ain't much of a homemaker :laugh:

[zhaoyun]

Just to be clear, the women who invariably end up caring for their children after dad has up and bailed do not deserve to be demonized. Hopefully though, they will have learned their lesson the next time around.

I personally believe that the person who has the bigger earning capacity is the most suitable candidate for working full-time. I don't really have any great respect for men or women who think it is someone else's duty to provide for them. If in the process of marriage and childrearing, it ends up that one parent stays at home, fine.....but there would be a cold day in hell for me to sit here and say my husband owes it to us to slave for the family any more than I should. He so happens to have better earning potential than I do so he is the one who works mostly. If that changed ever in our future, I'd be prepared to switch places with him if necessary...assuming my health holds out and whatnot.

Hope it never comes to that though because hubs ain't much of a homemaker :laugh:

Obviously life is complicated and things are rarely black and white. I actually think women should have careers and are entitled to every opportunity that men are. In fact, I've mentioned many times before on this board that my mother is actually the strongest person I know and she is very sharp in business. So certainly, in no way am I underestimating women or do I consider them secondary to men in capability.

However, with that said, it really rubs me the wrong way when I see men who are perfectly ok with having their girlfriends pay for dates and bills, which inevitably turns to their wives supporting them and keeping them afloat. Honestly, that's just not a man I could respect, and perhaps some might be offended by my opinion but its the god honest truth.

[Tarantia]

Man staying at home, thats so far out. Our genes control much more than we like to admit, and a male doing that is out of touch with his role. Deep down every woman want a man to provide for them. Its nature, baby. Don't fuck with nature.

[zhaoyun]

Also wanted to add that I have a great deal of respect for single mothers. I know it's one of the toughest jobs in the world.

I obviously have no respect for the deadbeat dads who should be taking care of their kids!

[rhiannon]

Obviously life is complicated and things are rarely black and white. I actually think women should have careers and are entitled to every opportunity that men are. In fact, I've mentioned many times before on this board that my mother is actually the strongest person I know and she is very sharp in business. So certainly, in no way am I underestimating women or do I consider them secondary to men in capability.

However, with that said, it really rubs me the wrong way when I see men who are perfectly ok with having their girlfriends pay for dates and bills, which inevitably turns to their wives supporting them and keeping them afloat. Honestly, that's just not a man I could respect, and perhaps some might be offended by my opinion but its the god honest truth.

I would say that neither men nor women should expect to sponge off the other as a matter of duty. That covers both our opinions :)

When I met my husband on our first date, he was blown away when I tried to pay for the date, despite my student status and limited funds. I just wasn't the kind of woman who automatically thought the man had to pay. It surprised him because his ex wife was a fucking sponge from hell.....in the worst way possible.

I'm cut from a different cloth :)

[zhaoyun]

I would say that neither men nor women should expect to sponge off the other as a matter of duty. That covers both our opinions :)

When I met my husband on our first date, he was blown away when I tried to pay for the date, despite my student status and limited funds. I just wasn't the kind of woman automatically thought the man had to pay. It surprised him because his ex wife was a fucking sponge from hell.....in the worst way possible.

I'm cut from a different cloth :)

That's fine. But I think it would've been a problem if he EXPECTED you to pay, or gladly had you pay at every turn. That's what I'm talking about. A lot of young men these days in American society actually have this mentality and it's definitely quite concerning.

[rhiannon]

That's fine. But I think it would've been a problem if he EXPECTED you to pay, or gladly had you pay at every turn. That's what I'm talking about. A lot of young men these days in American society actually have this mentality and it's definitely quite concerning.

It would be an equal problem if he had EXPECTED me to pay just as it would have been had I EXPECTED him to pay.

Nevertheless, when I tried to pay, he told me NO WAY LOL. He in fact, paid for the date.

I had tried to be fair in part because he drove nearly 50 miles to meet with me :) This was our very first meeting IRL (we met via Match.com).

Turns out, we both appreciated each other's outlook on these things.

[zhaoyun]

It would be an equal problem if he had EXPECTED me to pay just as it would have been had I EXPECTED him to pay.

Nevertheless, when I tried to pay, he told me NO WAY LOL. He in fact, paid for the date.

I had tried to be fair in part because he drove nearly 50 miles to meet with me :) This was our very first meeting IRL (we met via Match.com).

Turns out, we both appreciated each other's outlook on these things.

Well, you're definitely a very reasonable and fair person, so that's a great thing. I still think it should be more the man's responsibility to pay than the woman, but you're right, neither should have the attitude that they should leech off the other. Women should strive to be independent as well. But I think it's crucial that men at least own up to their responsibility to provide.

[rhiannon]

Well, you're definitely a very reasonable and fair person, so that's a great thing. I still think it should be more the man's responsibility to pay than the woman, but you're right, neither should have the attitude that they should leech off the other. Women should strive to be independent as well. But I think it's crucial that men at least own up to their responsibility to provide.

Well a lot of men end up not owning up to their responsibilities as fathers. Statistically, there are far more single moms with the lion's share of responsibilities. Moreover, statistically speaking again, after a divorce or separation, it is known that the woman's standard of living will decrease while the man's will in fact, increase!

[rhiannon]

It never ceases to boggle my mind how a parent of either sex could EVER walk away from their children :(

[Styrian Mujo]

It never ceases to boggle my mind how a parent of either sex could EVER walk away from their children :(
I think it's normal to a degree.

[Raven_]

'enjoying 14-hour [work] days' is just too much. Providing for the family is one thing, barely seeing them is another thing. Well, at least he enjoyed his job and didn't demand his kids to feel grateful. Unlike some other parents.

[Linet]

This is obvious to anybody who isn't brainwashed by liberalism. A man is supposed to be a provider, this is ingrained in our DNA. When in a household, the mother replaces the father as the provider, and the man assumes the role of the homemaker, then obviously his standing will come into question.

Take note, I'm completely in support of women having careers and also household chores being shared. But when a man completely gives up his responsibility to provide, he will inevitably lose the respect of not only his children, but his wife and also his peers.

Well said :thumbs


Ew. I just noticed you're Asian.
Typical Asian male mentality.
No woman would ever have children with you.

I suppose thats a praise :humble: .....since thats an excellent mentallity that only you dont seem to embrace http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/mix-points-smiley.gif?1292867637

[Hong Key]

Perhaps there can be exceptions to the rule but the rule is men take care of business (protecting the perimeter or battling in the board room) and women take care of the children and home. Do you really want to protect the perimeter while you are breast feeding? It is only in modern times we have these silly conversations. Since we are in modern times (for now) things will be somewhat different but the fact remains men who do the opposite role will get no or very little respect from their wife, children or neighbors.

[Breedingvariety]

'enjoying 14-hour [work] days' is just too much. Providing for the family is one thing, barely seeing them is another thing. Well, at least he enjoyed his job and didn't demand his kids to feel grateful. Unlike some other parents.
If a man does a good job taking care of his children, he would only get respect and love from them. So the article is bogus.

[robar]

Well a lot of men end up not owning up to their responsibilities as fathers. Statistically, there are far more single moms with the lion's share of responsibilities. Moreover, statistically speaking again, after a divorce or separation, it is known that the woman's standard of living will decrease while the man's will in fact, increase!

Hmm...
On average in a case of divorce the women will get the custody, at least in the western world, or where the tender years doctrine law spread back then, since rights and responsibilities go hand in hand slowly and generation by generation men will drop the responsibilities as well, no matter what the law will be.

[zhaoyun]

Perhaps there can be exceptions to the rule but the rule is men take care of business (protecting the perimeter or battling in the board room) and women take care of the children and home. Do you really want to protect the perimeter while you are breast feeding? It is only in modern times we have these silly conversations. Since we are in modern times (for now) things will be somewhat different but the fact remains men who do the opposite role will get no or very little respect from their wife, children or neighbors.

Can you imagine if there was a family where a noise was heard like someone was creeping around the house, and the wife tells the husband to stay back with nursing the kids while she goes out with a handgun to patrol the premises? LOL Honestly, I'm all for sexual equality but no matter what anybody tells me about how gender roles do not matter, I'd have nothing but comical contempt for such a man. LOL I feel the same way about men who are completely accepting of laying back and letting his woman take care of him financially.

[Gaston]

A lot of men are failures as fathers. That's why they spend most of their time working or out with their male friends.

[rhiannon]

Hmm...
On average in a case of divorce the women will get the custody, at least in the western world, or where the tender years doctrine law spread back then, since rights and responsibilities go hand in hand slowly and generation by generation men will drop the responsibilities as well, no matter what the law will be. Right, and this partially plays into why we see her (and her kids as well) SoL go down. Honestly, most men don't want primary custody of the children anyway. Joint custody is more commonplace today than it was when I was growing up living primarily with my mom.

[Felix Volkbein]

Can you imagine if there was a family where a noise was heard like someone was creeping around the house, and the wife tells the husband to stay back with nursing the kids while she goes out with a handgun to patrol the premises? LOL Honestly, I'm all for sexual equality but no matter what anybody tells me about how gender roles do not matter, I'd have nothing but comical contempt for such a man. LOL I feel the same way about men who are completely accepting of laying back and letting his woman take care of him financially.

To be fair, there were some great male artists who relied on wealthy female patrons for their sustenance. James Joyce among them.

[Harley]

When I first married, I had this foolish notion that as long as I was strong enough to work, I didn't mind paying all the bills and providing for my now ex husband and his daughter from a previous relationship, who I had raised since she was three. The crappy thing about this was he did the bare minimum. Didn't even cook or clean then also used up all my money as well. I did joint custody with him until he and his mom decided because I work and go to school, that he should take my kid and I should pay him child support.

I don't respect this kind of person. That's lazy and plain ridiculous.

There has to be equal exchange somewhere. This is something I lacked knowledge of until recently.

I started thinking about this during my last relationship with a Parisian man. I remember telling my Chinese male coworker about flying there earlier this year to meet the guy for the first time because the guy refused to come to America, despite having been here many times before. My coworker became very angry and asked me what kind of man is that, to let a girl who has never been out of country before to travel alone for the first time? To not have the decency to meet my family first?

This guy treats me like a little sister. It was very foreign to me to be treated this way because I'm used to guys looking at me as just another man and needing to suck it up. I was simultaneously shocked and pleased by this. First time I've been viewed as someone worth feeling protective over.

My boss says that I might not like Chinese men from China because I might be too independent for them. I think I just don't like idiots. Being appreciated like I have some value in a relationship is like regular maintenance to a car.

I keep thinking about Betty and Howard from Rugrats. She was a bit masculine and was the leader of the family. That dynamic worked for them.

There is no such thing as a free lunch lol. If I am completely honest, I would like to be treated like I'm valued and cherished. My current real world dynamics say that it's more important to be self sufficient than to put my trust into another relationship.

I personally would not like a house husband because it's just not my cup of tea. I think it's a luxury that I have intermediate family to be able to take care of any potential children so I can still get things done. Why would I choose to stay at home when I can work harder to earn money for my family, including for my stay at home mother? The role is already filled. If I am working, my potential husband needs to work too. We have someone to watch the kids. Two of us means we can get things done faster. Just saying.

[zhaoyun]

When I first married, I had this foolish notion that as long as I was strong enough to work, I didn't mind paying all the bills and providing for my now ex husband and his daughter from a previous relationship, who I had raised since she was three. The crappy thing about this was he did the bare minimum. Didn't even cook or clean then also used up all my money as well. I did joint custody with him until he and his mom decided because I work and go to school, that he should take my kid and I should pay him child support.

I don't respect this kind of person. That's lazy and plain ridiculous.

There has to be equal exchange somewhere. This is something I lacked knowledge of until recently.

I started thinking about this during my last relationship with a Parisian man. I remember telling my Chinese male coworker about flying there earlier this year to meet the guy for the first time because the guy refused to come to America, despite having been here many times before. My coworker became very angry and asked me what kind of man is that, to let a girl who has never been out of country before to travel alone for the first time? To not have the decency to meet my family first?

This guy treats me like a little sister. It was very foreign to me to be treated this way because I'm used to guys looking at me as just another man and needing to suck it up. I was simultaneously shocked and pleased by this. First time I've been viewed as someone worth feeling protective over.

My boss says that I might not like Chinese men from China because I might be too independent for them. I think I just don't like idiots. Being appreciated like I have some value in a relationship is like regular maintenance to a car.

I keep thinking about Betty and Howard from Rugrats. She was a bit masculine and was the leader of the family. That dynamic worked for them.

There is no such thing as a free lunch lol. If I am completely honest, I would like to be treated like I'm valued and cherished. My current real world dynamics say that it's more important to be self sufficient than to put my trust into another relationship.

I personally would not like a house husband because it's just not my cup of tea. I think it's a luxury that I have intermediate family to be able to take care of any potential children so I can still get things done. Why would I choose to stay at home when I can work harder to earn money for my family, including for my stay at home mother? The role is already filled. If I am working, my potential husband needs to work too. We have someone to watch the kids. Two of us means we can get things done faster. Just saying.

I've noticed it's become quite common amongst many young American men to treat women as just "one of the guys".

Sorry, but I consider this mentality fucking retarded.

Although I am American, I was still raised with a more traditional Chinese upbringing so there are just certain duties and responsibilities that belong to men. One is that as a man in the relationship, you're expected to be able to take care and provide for your wife and family. This doesn't mean that the woman is inferior, but honestly, if you value the woman and your family, that's exactly what you should expect of yourself. As for the woman, they should be expected to be a good wife and mother to their children, this doesn't mean that they shouldn't run a business or have a career, but those are basic standards that a man and woman should have for themselves. I don't see how this is supposed to be sexist, but this mentality is considered somewhat unpopular nowadays it seems, though it strikes me as common sense.

I'm actually a pretty open minded person and generally not judgemental, but I just really dislike this trend where men are growing up without any expectations of responsibility or duties, not protective of their woman, and just generally acting like a selfish little boy well into their adulthood. I mean, seriously, grow the fuck up.

Your story is very common amongst women who have dated guys that just leech of off them. That's why I have so much pure contempt over such men.

[robar]

Right, and this partially plays into why we see her (and her kids as well) SoL go down. Honestly, most men don't want primary custody of the children anyway. Joint custody is more commonplace today than it was when I was growing up living primarily with my mom.

Yes but that's due to social engineering from the 19 th century , back then kids belonged to the Father, and were his rights and responsibilities,generally that shifted for the mothers ,so society sees in that way today.Add to this, that sometimes the worst thing you could do is to give people what they want .:)

[arcticwolf]

Honestly, a man who is perfectly fine with having their woman support them is not a real man. Dumbass motherfuckers on here can call me sexist but I don't care. I'm not talking about men who are temporarily laid off, or down on their luck, but those who are perfectly fine with having their woman pay all the bills, earn the family bread and take care of him financially, that's not a man, that's a fucking boy.

You're sexist!

[wvwvw]

You're sexist!

Dumbass motherfucker!

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It's a gimmick and hence the photos of the father looking like a goof with his kids and wife. They're just acting it out.

[rhiannon]

Yes but that's due to social engineering from the 19 th century , back then kids belonged to the Father, and were his rights and responsibilities,generally that shifted for the mothers ,so society sees in that way today.Add to this, that sometimes the worst thing you could do is to give people what they want .:)
Women have historically been the caretakers of children. It has been that way since our earliest beginnings.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

A lot of men are failures as fathers. That's why they spend most of their time working or out with their male friends.

The biggest myth (destroyed by Harris with data on twins) is that parents have this huge influence on their children. They don't. Our peers have more influence on how we turn out than our parents. Most kids show one face to their parents and a different one to their peers: the one they show their peers is the real face and it's dependent on genetics (extrovert vs, introvert, aggressive vs. passsive, etc.) and where the kid fits in the peer hierarchy, which will dictate to the rest how the kid should be treated.

Anyway, I would expect my hypothetical children not to bother me. I'd give them something to do if I sense they were about to give me their attention, such as having them pick up rocks and put them in piles or dig a hole, when their attention is undesired.

[robar]

Women have historically been the caretakers of children. It has been that way since our earliest beginnings.

Not entirelly truth, back then in a case of divorce ,kids remained with the father how he managed the whole stuff alone that is questionable, but virtually in my country from the XI. th century till the XX. th that was the law,so no matter what ,the father couldn't drop neither the rights nor the responsibilities and they knew that beforehand.:) . Actually in the XI. th century the only way to drop these things was to flee to a foreign country, and to not return.:)

Add to even this, that in a case the father died, or fled to a foreign country, the mother still neither had the responsibility, though she could
take it on, but were not legally obliged to do so. Oldest son or the fathers brother had to step in....

[Breedingvariety]

It's a gimmick and hence the photos of the father looking like a goof with his kids and wife. They're just acting it out.
Lol, exactly what I thought.

[Breedingvariety]

The biggest myth (destroyed by Harris with data on twins) is that parents have this huge influence on their children. They don't. Our peers have more influence on how we turn out than our parents.
Biggest influence is TV.

[rhiannon]

Not entirelly truth, back then in a case of divorce ,kids remained with the father how he managed the whole stuff alone that is questionable, but virtually in my country from the XI. th century till the XX. th that was the law,so no matter what ,the father couldn't drop neither the rights nor the responsibilities and they knew that beforehand.:) . Actually in the XI. th century the only way to drop these things was to flee to a foreign country, and to not return.:)

Add to even this, that in a case the father died, or fled to a foreign country, the mother still neither had the responsibility, though she could
take it on, but were not legally obliged to do so. Oldest son or the fathers brother had to step in....

None of that existed because it was thought the fathers would be better caregivers of the children. It was done because women weren't considered independent human beings outside the men. They couldn't hold property rights, and children were by and large considered property. If ever a divorce happened, the woman was also often blamed for it because men could pretty much call all the shots, so they would naturally blame the women whenever possible. Now certainly, the kids weren't going to be sent to live with a harlot, were they?:laugh:

Ever seen a marriage contract from the late 1800s-early 1900s?

It's enough to make me shudder :(

[robar]

None of that existed because it was thought the fathers would be better caregivers of the children. It was done because women weren't considered independent human beings outside the men. They couldn't hold property rights, and children were by and large considered property. If ever a divorce happened, the woman was also often blamed for it because men could pretty much call all the shots, so they would naturally blame the women whenever possible. Now certainly, the kids weren't going to be sent to live with a harlot, were they?:laugh:

Ever seen a marriage contract from the late 1800s-early 1900s?

It's enough to make me shudder :(
Well laws were diferent in each country and I don't have much knowledge about the legal customs in the U.S.

[robar]

None of that existed because it was thought the fathers would be better caregivers of the children. It was done because women weren't considered independent human beings outside the men. :(

Nah generally back then in the midle ages,especially early midle ages people lived from the field, and had what they themselwes produced, men produced more in the same teritory for obvious physical reasons, and in those times people were happy if they had food in the table, in this setting of course most rights and responsibilities went to the father, now ower time this disappeared, due to technological changes.
At todays legal and social customs children are property of the mothers, since long-long years now, and as separations, divorces , etc rise, men will drop the responsibilities as well, and nothing morally wrong with that.

[You Fear Me]

None of that existed because it was thought the fathers would be better caregivers of the children. It was done because women weren't considered independent human beings outside the men. They couldn't hold property rights, and children were by and large considered property. If ever a divorce happened, the woman was also often blamed for it because men could pretty much call all the shots, so they would naturally blame the women whenever possible. Now certainly, the kids weren't going to be sent to live with a harlot, were they?:laugh:

Ever seen a marriage contract from the late 1800s-early 1900s?

It's enough to make me shudder :(

Ever seen statistics on children raised by single mothers?

It would make you shudder.

[You Fear Me]

I've noticed it's become quite common amongst many young American men to treat women as just "one of the guys".

Sorry, but I consider this mentality fucking retarded.

Although I am American, I was still raised with a more traditional Chinese upbringing so there are just certain duties and responsibilities that belong to men. One is that as a man in the relationship, you're expected to be able to take care and provide for your wife and family. This doesn't mean that the woman is inferior, but honestly, if you value the woman and your family, that's exactly what you should expect of yourself. As for the woman, they should be expected to be a good wife and mother to their children, this doesn't mean that they shouldn't run a business or have a career, but those are basic standards that a man and woman should have for themselves. I don't see how this is supposed to be sexist, but this mentality is considered somewhat unpopular nowadays it seems, though it strikes me as common sense.

I'm actually a pretty open minded person and generally not judgemental, but I just really dislike this trend where men are growing up without any expectations of responsibility or duties, not protective of their woman, and just generally acting like a selfish little boy well into their adulthood. I mean, seriously, grow the fuck up.

Your story is very common amongst women who have dated guys that just leech of off them. That's why I have so much pure contempt over such men.

Why value a woman who is too inferior to provide for herself without a man (or affirmative action)?

Chinese traditional values:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GCCL5C4ID18/UfAOPTuJRXI/AAAAAAAAPEc/zG0kkyJYNWI/s1600/q.jpeg

[zhaoyun]

Why value a woman who is too inferior to provide for herself without a man (or affirmative action)?

Chinese traditional values:

]

LOL Nice try Glenn Iverson.

That photo was already proven to be a stunt:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

Also, never had any issues with women providing for themselves or earning. Like I mentioned before, my mother is a successful businesswoman and the toughest person I've ever known.

And actually, all the women I've ever dated or have been attracted to have had strong personalities. I much prefer strong, intelligent women.

Between you and me, you're the inferior, weak, ugly, cowardly beta bitch.

So again, FUCK YOU.

[You Fear Me]

LOL Nice try Glenn Iverson.

That photo was already proven to be a stunt:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

Also, never had any issues with women providing for themselves or earning. Like I mentioned before, my mother is a successful businesswoman and the toughest person I've ever known.

And actually, all the women I've ever dated or have been attracted to have had strong personalities. I much prefer strong, intelligent women.

Between you and me, you're the inferior, weak, ugly, cowardly beta bitch.

So again, FUCK YOU.

I am your superior. :thumbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Yu_%28artist%29#cite_note-8


Zhu Yu is often termed the most controversial and criticized artist in China. Zhu graduated from the Affiliated High School of the Central Academy of Fine Arts in 1991. His contemporary performance art raises questions about moral agendas, and draws an audience through its shock value. His artwork often encompasses the human body. He is categorized by some critics as an artist of the “cadaver school,” which consists of artists who tend to use human body parts in their work.[2] Yu's most famous piece of conceptual art, titled "Eating People," was performed at a Shanghai arts festival in 2000. It consisted of a series of photographs of him cooking and eating what is alleged to be a human fetus.[3] The picture, circulated on the internet via e-mail in 2001, provoked investigations by both the FBI and Scotland Yard.[3] The piece's cannibalistic theme caused a stir in Britain when Yu's work was featured on a Channel 4 documentary exploring Chinese Contemporary Art in 2003.[4] In response to the public reaction, Mr. Yu stated, "No religion forbids cannibalism. Nor can I find any law which prevents us from eating people. I took advantage of the space between morality and the law and based my work on it".[4] Yu has claimed that he used an actual fetus which was stolen from a medical school.[5]

Images from the piece have also been used in anti-Chinese propaganda, disseminated by e-mail with a short text attached explaining the images show China's "hottest food" and that dead fetuses can be bought for 10-12,000 Yen (approximately US$100 - US$120). Recipients are encouraged to forward the mail, and the explanatory text is written in both English and Korean script.

[zhaoyun]

I am your superior. :thumbs

url]

No, you are a weird troll and a creepy stalker with a serious mental disorder. Why come back when you just get banned after an hour you freak?